Ayn Rand

[maelstrom]

Does anyone here study Objectivism?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I do.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Study?

I have read all her fictional books (and none of the nonfictional). I think though that my agreement with her philosophy is so-so.

 

[JGL53]

Does anyone here study Objectivism?

I've read most of Ayn Rand's non-fiction books, e.g., Philosophy: Who Needs It?", but I never could get into either Atlas or Fountainhead. I've read the books by Nathanial and Barbra Brandon about their experiences with her - not a pretty picture. And I have read several books critical of Rand, the best being one by Albert Ellis - again, not a pretty picture.

I was fascinated by Rand for a few years when I was young, but I am much better now. My view of her now is that she was pretty much a one-sided fanatic and a quite unreasonable utopianist. She wasn't that educated or knowledgeable in a lot of important areas, and she comes off mainly like a narcissist. That is not good.

Some people do claim that reading her stuff inspired them to be more self-confident or self-accepting. Whatever.

Personally, I find reading modern western science and eastern wisdom writings far more inspiring and edifying. Rand seems out of date to me.

 

[Isambard]

I know of her. When I get a chance I plan to pick up one of fiction books.

 

[maelstrom]

I think she often let her personal feelings get in the way of her integrity and rationality. The central tenets of her philosophy, however, are sound and hard to dispute. I try to tell all Christians about her work. I doubt Ayn Rand ever actually read the New Testament, but if she had, she might have had some interesting things to say about the teachings of Jesus vs. the teachings of the church.

 

[redmartian89]

Does anyone here study Objectivism?

I have studied Objectivism.

It makes a hell of a lot more sense then other philosophical movements.

While I'm agnostic about Objectivism and minarchism, the moral explanations are among the soundest and most rational I have seen.

I proudly proclaim my rational selfishness to the world!

 

[maelstrom]

It is in one's interests to love each person as part of one's own body, since we are cosmically connected. From an ecological and economic point of view, it is profoundly irrational to ignore your social environment, if you wish to survive. Neither the human race as a whole nor any individual person will ever succeed unless they learn, "love your neighbor as yourself."

It is in your interests to be alive, so when a smarter, more powerful being offers you the way to be resurrected from the dead, it is profoundly irrational to reject it, if you wish to pursue happiness.

Ayn Rand's arguments against God are not Biblical. She says that there is no supernatural--the Bible doesn't say that God is above the laws of nature or outside of the natural universe. She says that the universe was not created but is absolute--the Bible doesn't say that God created the universe; it says God created the heavens and the earth, exercising power not over the absolute but over the temporal. She says that no entity can be infinite, as it would violate the law of identity--the Bible doesn't say that God is an indefinite entity; it says God is a specific person who has unlimited knowledge and power.

In fact, Ayn Rand's belief in volitional morality and the metaphysical existence of free will actually *supports* the idea of God. If a being can make choices that are good or bad, it stands to reason that it is possible for there to be a perfect being. If man has free will, and all events have causes, then physical events cannot be random, causeless, or predetermined, as scientists have claimed. Rather, it would seem that physical events *can be* and *are* controlled by conscious beings. To deny that the future is selected by conscious decision, from among multiple possibilities, is to deny free will.

If the universe is eternal, and a perfectly moral being is possible, and the existence of free will means that beings have control over the cosmos, it is not so irrational at all to believe that the current status of the cosmos originated from the work of a being or beings. In fact, it makes a lot more sense than to believe that the universe just popped out of nothing for no reason at all.

What Jesus preached--and *demonstrated*--was that man could defeat death, which goes right along with Objectivism. You could even look at Atlas Shrugged as an allegory about the kingdom of God. Of course, I can't prove that Jesus rose from the dead or did any miracles. But I don't think it is altogether far-fetched that a man could receive power from an advanced being to perform what would seem like "miracles" to those who lack scientific knowledge of how the body works. If there is anything science has taught us, it is that we *can* look forward to the ability to heal all diseases.

It's the political philosophy of Jesus that is the most compelling reason for me to believe in his divinity. If men would simply eliminate violence from human relationships, we could have freedom and prosperity beyond anything ever imagined. Instead of interacting by force, why not form societies based on consent? That is what I think it means to love each other. That doesn't mean there cannot be justice--a man who consents to the law and to the punishment for breaking, then breaks the law, cannot complain that he is the victim of violence when he is punished.

The weak point of secular humanism is that if some accident were to befall mankind for which we were not prepared, we would be destroyed. Suppose a comet from the sky kills us all? That is why we need help from a higher power--we can do all that is in our effort, but when our efforts are not enough, we require friendship with a more capable being in order to continue our survival. Who can claim to be perfect enough to achieve everlasting life without any help from above? Certainly Ayn Rand can't--she's already dead. If there had been a doctor around with enough medical prowess to save her life, she would still be living and happy. If there is in the future a doctor who discovers a way to resurrect her, she might be alive again. But I suggest that there already IS such a doctor--Jesus! She did not believe in Jesus, but personally I want to be revived in case I ever have an accident, and Jesus sounds like the man who can do it.

I am the way, the truth, and the life, he said--and the truth shall make you free.

 

[nadroj1985]

What little I know of her leaves me unimpressed. Metaphysically and epistemologically, it seems she was naive, or at least dismissive. Morally, she was basically a weaker, less profound version of Aristotle or Nietzsche. As a writer of literature, not so hot.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It is in one's interests to love each person as part of one's own body, since we are cosmically connected.

That may be pushing things too far. Ayn Rand taught the value of having respect for others, and a culture in which people earn respect, so she wasn't exactly telling people to be hermits.

It is in your interests to be alive, so when a smarter, more powerful being offers you the way to be resurrected from the dead, it is profoundly irrational to reject it, if you wish to pursue happiness.

If such a being were to exist, you might be right. Ayn Rand might even agree with you, given that provision.

The weak point of secular humanism is that if some accident were to befall mankind for which we were not prepared, we would be destroyed.

That isn't a weak point of either secular humanism or Objectivism. That's a weak point of the position that human beings face in reality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

I proudly proclaim my rational selfishness to the world!

I proclaim mine too.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[redmartian89]

It is in one's interests to love each person as part of one's own body, since we are cosmically connected. From an ecological and economic point of view, it is profoundly irrational to ignore your social environment, if you wish to survive. Neither the human race as a whole nor any individual person will ever succeed unless they learn, "love your neighbor as yourself."

It is in your interests to be alive, so when a smarter, more powerful being offers you the way to be resurrected from the dead, it is profoundly irrational to reject it, if you wish to pursue happiness.

Ayn Rand's arguments against God are not Biblical. She says that there is no supernatural--the Bible doesn't say that God is above the laws of nature or outside of the natural universe. She says that the universe was not created but is absolute--the Bible doesn't say that God created the universe; it says God created the heavens and the earth, exercising power not over the absolute but over the temporal. She says that no entity can be infinite, as it would violate the law of identity--the Bible doesn't say that God is an indefinite entity; it says God is a specific person who has unlimited knowledge and power.

In fact, Ayn Rand's belief in volitional morality and the metaphysical existence of free will actually *supports* the idea of God. If a being can make choices that are good or bad, it stands to reason that it is possible for there to be a perfect being. If man has free will, and all events have causes, then physical events cannot be random, causeless, or predetermined, as scientists have claimed. Rather, it would seem that physical events *can be* and *are* controlled by conscious beings. To deny that the future is selected by conscious decision, from among multiple possibilities, is to deny free will.

If the universe is eternal, and a perfectly moral being is possible, and the existence of free will means that beings have control over the cosmos, it is not so irrational at all to believe that the current status of the cosmos originated from the work of a being or beings. In fact, it makes a lot more sense than to believe that the universe just popped out of nothing for no reason at all.

What Jesus preached--and *demonstrated*--was that man could defeat death, which goes right along with Objectivism. You could even look at Atlas Shrugged as an allegory about the kingdom of God. Of course, I can't prove that Jesus rose from the dead or did any miracles. But I don't think it is altogether far-fetched that a man could receive power from an advanced being to perform what would seem like "miracles" to those who lack scientific knowledge of how the body works. If there is anything science has taught us, it is that we *can* look forward to the ability to heal all diseases.

It's the political philosophy of Jesus that is the most compelling reason for me to believe in his divinity. If men would simply eliminate violence from human relationships, we could have freedom and prosperity beyond anything ever imagined. Instead of interacting by force, why not form societies based on consent? That is what I think it means to love each other. That doesn't mean there cannot be justice--a man who consents to the law and to the punishment for breaking, then breaks the law, cannot complain that he is the victim of violence when he is punished.

The weak point of secular humanism is that if some accident were to befall mankind for which we were not prepared, we would be destroyed. Suppose a comet from the sky kills us all? That is why we need help from a higher power--we can do all that is in our effort, but when our efforts are not enough, we require friendship with a more capable being in order to continue our survival. Who can claim to be perfect enough to achieve everlasting life without any help from above? Certainly Ayn Rand can't--she's already dead. If there had been a doctor around with enough medical prowess to save her life, she would still be living and happy. If there is in the future a doctor who discovers a way to resurrect her, she might be alive again. But I suggest that there already IS such a doctor--Jesus! She did not believe in Jesus, but personally I want to be revived in case I ever have an accident, and Jesus sounds like the man who can do it.

I am the way, the truth, and the life, he said--and the truth shall make you free.

You read way too much of Christianity into Ayn Rand.

Galt's Gulch is the exact opposite of the Kingdom of Heaven. The Christian God demanded faith and obedience, not reason and freethought. You misquoted Jesus:

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
John 14:6-7

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
John 8:31

It seems that faith, not reason, is the virtue on which salvation is built.

Ayn Rand had a very damning opinion of religion and faith:

Ask youself whether the dream of heaven and greatness should be waiting for us in our graves--or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth.

Playboy: Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?
Ayn Rand: Qua religion, no - in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man's life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very - how should I say it? - dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith. [Playboy interview with Ayn Rand]

You obviously do not agree with Objectivism as she established it.

Objectivism honors pride and strength, not humility and meekness.

Quick Question: don't the "heavens and the earth" equate to being the entire universe?

 

[maelstrom]

Reality demands obedience. If men were perfect, they wouldn't need salvation. But I have faith that God will spare me from death despite my flaws, if I honestly repent of them.

I became a Christian years after being a dedicated Randroid--I am humble enough to admit needing help from above to live forever. I don't want to die.

Jesus actually taught heaven on Earth, not in the grave. If we love each other--by fulfilling Ayn Rand's political views--we can achieve paradise. We must eliminate violence by interacting solely by consent, by contract. I'll write more later when the computer is fixed--point is, Jesus is smarter than Rand.

Can you achieve paradise without God? Try if you think you can--I'll accept what Christ offers. It's in my interests.

 

[maelstrom]

You read way too much of Christianity into Ayn Rand.

Galt's Gulch is the exact opposite of the Kingdom of Heaven. The Christian God demanded faith and obedience, not reason and freethought. You misquoted Jesus:





It seems that faith, not reason, is the virtue on which salvation is built.

Ayn Rand had a very damning opinion of religion and faith:





You obviously do not agree with Objectivism as she established it.

Objectivism honors pride and strength, not humility and meekness.

Quick Question: don't the "heavens and the earth" equate to being the entire universe?

Heavens and Earth refer to the temporal cosmos, which is subject to volition. But there is more to the universe--absolutes cannot be changed.

 

[Stinker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

I think Ayn Rand came as close to teaching the Christian God's morality as is possible, without confessing Him.
Here is a post-debate Q&A session following a debate William Lane Craig had. It is question on Ayn Rand and his opponent Mr. Taylor also commented:

Seventh Questioner: Dr. Craig, what is the purpose or goal of your ethics? And I also would like, if you would let me address the question to you, would you also comment on a quote. It says: "Ethics is an objective metaphysical necessity of man’s survival, not by the grace of the supernatural, nor of your neighbors or your whims, but by the grace of reality and the nature of life." And it also goes on to continue, "All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good, all that which destroys it is evil." The quote is by...
Taylor: Who is the author? Who are you quoting?
Seventh Questioner: Ayn Rand.
Taylor: Oh.
Craig: Ayn Rand?
Seventh Questioner: Yes.
Craig: See, hers is that self–interest ethics, and it seems to me that that is just patently false. Many times self–interest and morality go in different directions, particularly when it comes to acts of self–sacrifice and compassion. It seems to me, too, that what she said about something that betters the lot of mankind (or something to that effect) is good, and what doesn’t is evil—that’s purely arbitrary. I would like to pose to her the question: Why human beings? Isn’t that just a form of specie–ism? Why do you seem to like human beings among all the species that have evolved, to define moral good and evil? That’s arbitrary, on a naturalistic worldview. On a theistic worldview, I have a basis for that, and that answers the first part of the question: namely, that human beings are persons, they are created in the image of God and are therefore intrinsically valuable. And our goal in ethics is to conform ourselves to the moral nature of God, to become like Him. That’s the purpose of ethics as I see them.

Taylor: What’s so interesting about the quotation is: The philosophy from which you’re quoting is called objectivism. And my opponent seems to represent the Christian religion, the Sermon on the Mount, and so forth, as somehow more objective, as if somehow this were a stable word that has no relativism to it. When I read passages like that, from Ayn Rand, and I’m no devoted student of her, but I have read these things, and I am sometimes, as you apparently are, thrilled with what I read, because she is saying "Look to yourself, your own nobility." This is a standard, and it is. You can condemn it as self–centered, arbitrary. It is not. It is self–centered; it’s certainly not arbitrary, and I don’t think anyone is in a position to say, "Look, if you want something that’s not arbitrary, turn to the Christian religion."

 

[variant]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

I think Ayn Rand came as close to teaching the Christian God's morality as is possible, without confessing Him.
Here is a post-debate Q&A session following a debate William Lane Craig had. It is question on Ayn Rand and his opponent Mr. Taylor also commented:

No. Ayn Rand doesn’t teach Christian morality.

Utilitarianism (as in morality is the pursuit of happiness NOT the greatest good for the greatest number)? Yes.

Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values.

The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.

Eudemonia? Yes.

Ask yourself whether the dream of heaven and greatness should be waiting for us in our graves - or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth.

Libertarianism? Yes.

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

Aristotelian logic Yes.

Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

Atheism? Yes.

God... a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive.

That selfishness is a virtue and altruism is slavery Yes.

It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.

(Note by this reasoning Jesus's sermon on the mount was a sermon to slaves that he intended to master)

Capitalism? Yes.

Money is the barometer of a society's virtue.

Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter.

So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of all money?

And she differs a bit about Jesus's philosophy.

The worst guilt is to accept an unearned guilt.

This is as close as you can get to teaching Christian God's morality as an unbeliever?